 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / January 2007Bush urges tax on employer-provided health insurance
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/washington/21health.html Bush Urges Tax to Help Cover the Uninsured By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and ROBERT PEAR WASHINGTON, Jan. 20 President Bush intends to use the State of the Union address on Tuesday to tackle the rising cost of health care with a one-two punch: tax breaks to help low-income people buy health insurance and tax increases for workers whose health plans cost more than the national average. I will propose a tax reform designed to help make basic private insurance more affordable, Mr. Bush said in his weekly radio address on Saturday, whether you get it through your job or on your own. He did not offer specifics, but an administration official provided details of the plan late Friday afternoon... The basic concept of the presidents plan is that employer-provided health insurance, now treated as a fringe benefit exempt from taxation, would no longer be entirely tax-free. Workers could be taxed if their coverage exceeded limits set by the government. But the government would also offer a new tax deduction for people buying health insurance on their own. The plan is a startling move for a president who has repeatedly vowed not to raise taxes. The administration official said that while there would be tax winners and losers under the program, it was revenue neutral and therefore not a tax increase. Yet it is certain to run into opposition from business groups, labor unions and, most of all, the Democrats who now run Capitol Hill. Its a bad policy, Representative Charles B. Rangel, the New York Democrat who is chairman of the House committee that writes tax legislation, said in an interview Friday night. We are trying to bring tax relief to the middle class. The president is trying to increase their tax liability. This proposal is inconsistent with what the majority is seeking in the House and the Senate. Supporters say the plan would expand coverage to some of the 47 million uninsured. But critics say it would, in effect, tax people with insurance to provide coverage to those without it. That would amount to a tectonic shift in the way people get and pay for their health coverage, and historically it has been all but impossible to win Congressional approval for such changes. When President Ronald Reagan made a proposal similar to Mr. Bushs in 1986, it died in Congress, with Mr. Rangel helping to lead the opposition... This is a classic case of robbing Peter to help Paul pay for coverage, said E. Neil Trautwein, a vice president of the National Retail Federation. In trying to address the problems of the uninsured, Mr. Trautwein said, we should not start by endangering coverage for people who already have it. Some labor leaders are skeptical as well. Alan V. Reuther, legislative director of the United Automobile Workers, said the labor movement had strongly opposed changes of the type proposed by Mr. Bush. This would be a tax increase on working Americans, Mr. Reuther said. It will undermine comprehensive health coverage. It will create pressure to cut benefits and increase co-payments and deductibles in order to keep the value of health plans beneath the tax cap. > I will propose a tax reform designed to help make basic private > insurance more affordable, We pay 2.5 times as we pay per capita for health insurance, yet they are healthier, and for that "tiny" amount of money they cover 100% of the population while we have almost 17% uninsured: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=1914155&page=1 Over 50% of all the bankruptcies in US are due to additional medical costs (copayments, cap limit, deductible, uncovered expenses) related to serious illness suffered by a middle class insured person. Brits have NONE in this category, if a British guy is sick ..... he gets all the care he need regardless of his financial status. Let face the reality: Private health insurance corporations seems to be only a gand of robbery barons and nothing else. All the money they make are blood money made by inflicting suffering and pains and even death. In this condition it seems hard to find why a mentally sane person commercially uninterested to maintain the broken system may want to encourage the robbery barons and oppose the only civilized options: Universal health care. >> “I will propose a tax reform designed to help make basic private >> insurance more affordable,” [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > category, if a British guy is sick ..... he gets all the care he need > regardless of his financial status. but what KIND of health care? how comprehensive? how cutting edge? what wait? and just what is the income tax rate(s) in the UK anyway? > but what KIND of health care? how comprehensive? how cutting edge? > what > wait? and just what is the income tax rate(s) in the UK anyway? We pay 2.5 times as we pay per capita for health insurance, yet they are healthier than us. They are healthier, Bamby: cutting edge+ comprehensive = less illness = healthier. Stop supporting the crime ring of private insurers. Brits are healthier and we pay per capita 2.5 times as they do for health care, and we have 17% of the population (kids included) uninsured. There are a lot of preventable deaths in US due to unaffordable and not accessible health care. That is. The private health insurance system it is the biggest failure of US socio-political system and it is illogical and criminal to support a business making money by killing people. What 's next: Supporting MAFIA ? Turning the finances to a private MOB ? Get a hint: A criminal system must be replaced entirely. >> but what KIND of health care? how comprehensive? how cutting edge? >> what [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > They are healthier, Bamby: > cutting edge+ comprehensive = less illness = healthier. not necessarily. perhaps brits eat better/exercise more? those are the overwhelming roots of health problems in this country. and stress. and you didn't answer this one: what is the income tax rate(s) in the UK anyway? > >> but what KIND of health care? how comprehensive? how cutting edge? > >> what [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and you didn't answer this one: what is the income tax rate(s) in the UK > anyway? Every national health care system uses rationing to keep costs down. In the UK top income tax bracket is 40% after 33,300 pounds, National insurance is 11%, VAT is 17.5%, high gasoline and alchohol taxes, stamp taxes and local taxes. The Beatles didn't write the song Taxman for fun. >>>> but what KIND of health care? how comprehensive? how cutting edge? >>>> what [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 11%, VAT is 17.5%, high gasoline and alchohol taxes, stamp taxes and local > taxes. The Beatles didn't write the song Taxman for fun. Hi, Care is rationed in American, too. Doctors can't do anything without having to answer to an insurance company or an HMO. But anyways, Canada might be a better comparison because it has a lot more in common with the USA than Britain does (being in North America and all). Canada's health system is not "socialized either", it has private providers with single payer financing. More like "social insurance". In any case, federal income taxes in Canada are lower than the USA. However provincial vs state income taxes are all over the map -- the high tax states like Massachusetts, New York, and California are as high or higher than the lower tax provinces like Alberta. On average provincial taxes are quite a bit higher than state income taxes. Canada also has VERY high taxes on products like alchohol, cigarettes, and gasoline. Canada also imposes a 7% income tax on top of provincial income taxes (no provincial sales tax in Alberta) which brings sales taxes on goods that aren't necessities like food, shelter, to about 13% or 14%! That said, Canadians don't pay the payroll taxes as in the USA. I'm not sure which is the larger sum: the amount of extra taxes Canadians pay for their health care system or the amount of private expense Americans pay for private health insurance? My guess would be Canadians are paying less. One other benefit to the Canadian system is the issue nospam brought up about bankruptcy. You won't lose your life's savings if you get sick in Canada. Moreover, if you want to quit your job to start your own business you needn't worry about health insurance issue. There is a lot more freedom in that respect. At any rate, no system is perfect and all will have problems. I don't know what the perfect system is? >>>>> but what KIND of health care? how comprehensive? how cutting edge? >>>>> what [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Hi, Care is rationed in American, too. Doctors can't do anything without > having to answer to an insurance company or an HMO. of course they can. they just don't accept insurance. you are then required to pay the doctor, do all the filing and get back less than 50% of what you paid to the doctor (on average). many doctors are starting to refuse insurance. >I'm not sure which is the larger sum: the amount of extra taxes >Canadians pay for their health care system or the amount of private >expense Americans pay for private health insurance? My guess would be >Canadians are paying less. US government spending for medical care is about 6.5% of GDP (which covers about 1/4 of the population); private spending is another 8.5% of GDP (including some tax break subsidies for employers providing medical insurance to employees). Canada's government spends about 7% of GDP on (universal) medical care. Another 3% of Canada's GDP is private medical spending. Canada's GDP per person is somewhat lower than the US'.  Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. > Every national health care system uses rationing to keep costs down. Making a procedure cost 2.5 times more IT IS A METHOD OR RATIONALIZATION. Instead of having the doctors giving 17% less care to everybody equally, you just eliminate 17% of the population from ANY medical care, so you can provide 17% more care to those that can afford to pay. Instead of providing potential lifesaving surgery to everybody at the expense of cutting the access to esthetic/fashion surgery, you decide to let 17% of the population without access to potential lifesaving care in order to provide luxury care for the top 1%. hat you actually do IT IS RATIONALIZATION based on the deepness of the pocket. But a more criminal form of rationalization. So at least have the decency to cut the amount of hypocrisy you spew on the net to defend the profits of the robbery barons. There are various ways of rationalization. The one that allow a poor kid to die in order to provide better esthetic surgery to a billionaire it is one of the most criminal forms of (I)RATIONALIZATION. >> Every national health care system uses rationing to keep costs down. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > better esthetic surgery to a billionaire it is one of the most criminal > forms of (I)RATIONALIZATION. it should be done at the state level, not the federal one. and states that do it will see more people move there. >> >> but what KIND of health care? how comprehensive? how cutting edge? >> >> what [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 11%, VAT is 17.5%, high gasoline and alchohol taxes, stamp taxes and local > taxes. The Beatles didn't write the song Taxman for fun. yeah. i heard lenin (no pun intended) departed england because the tax rate on him was something like 90%. which brings up another thing: with all the wealth of the beatles, surely those do-gooder lefties shouldn't have mined paying their "fair share" of 90% of their earnings. after all, the 10% they had left was more than most on the planet earned a year. but that's so like do-gooder lefties... >>> >> but what KIND of health care? how comprehensive? how cutting edge? >>> >> what [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > had left was more than most on the planet earned a year. but that's so like > do-gooder lefties... Actually, it just the how humans behave. It matters not whether left or right of center. But other than losing the income from the taxes there was no loss to the society in this person moving outside the tax jurisdiction. I feel that the USA does most of the IP rights enforcement anyway and that this fellow should be paying a tax to the USA for that service no matter where he lives. Signature"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson http://GreaterVoice.org >> but what KIND of health care? how comprehensive? how cutting edge? >> what [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Get a hint: A criminal system must be replaced entirely. Everything that the government tries to run turns into a money pit. Hell, the IRS took over the Mustang Ranch and managed to run a whore house at a loss. Just think of the boondoggle they could make of national health care. >>> but what KIND of health care? how comprehensive? how cutting edge? >>> what [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > at a loss. > Just think of the boondoggle they could make of national health care. I understand where you're coming from regarding governments running anything -- they usually do a lousy job. However health care is different. In all fairness, they run medicare and medicaid more efficiently than private companies run their health plans. > Everything that the government tries to run turns into a money pit. > Hell, the IRS took over the Mustang Ranch and managed to run a whore house > at a loss. > Just think of the boondoggle they could make of national health care. Yet another corporate crook payed to spread PR on the usenet. We pay 2.5 times as Brits do for our PRIVATE health care system while they are healthier than us. French gov. run health care system has been declared for the third time in the row as the best in the world, despite the fact that the French doctors strike on streets from time to time. US infant mortality rate it is comparable with countries that spend on health care less that 10% of what we pay. But of course. The corporate crooks wants us to believe that: "Everything that the government tries to run turns into a money pit." That is. PR slogans must always be employed to hide the reality. Are you a libertarian by any chance ? > > but what KIND of health care? how comprehensive? how cutting edge? > > what [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Get a hint: A criminal system must be replaced entirely. Are you suggesting that private businesses are criminal, but governments aren't? SignatureWant Freebies? http://www.TheFreeStuffList.com/ Check The Free Stuff List >> > but what KIND of health care? how comprehensive? how cutting edge? >> > what [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Are you suggesting that private businesses are criminal, but > governments aren't? govts have 1 and only 1, objective: CONTROL >>> > but what KIND of health care? how comprehensive? how cutting edge? >>> > what [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > govts have 1 and only 1, objective: CONTROL So long as it is control by the people for the people then all is well. We need 4 times the current number of representatives in our House of Representatives and this "rule by the people" would be the case. Signature"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson http://GreaterVoice.org > >>> > but what KIND of health care? how comprehensive? how cutting edge? > >>> > what [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > We need 4 times the current number of representatives in our House > of Representatives and this "rule by the people" would be the case. The problem is that most of, "the people" are lazy morons. SignatureWant Freebies? http://www.TheFreeStuffList.com/ Check The Free Stuff List >> >>> > but what KIND of health care? how comprehensive? how cutting edge? >> >>> > what [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > The problem is that most of, "the people" are lazy morons. Read the signature below and THINK about what it says. Most of the problem is being caused by the realization that "we the people" have too little control over OUR government. We are not accountable for the stuff we cannot influence and so apathy prevails. That merely _seems_ like laziness and stupidity. Signature"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson http://GreaterVoice.org >>> "I will propose a tax reform designed to help make basic private >>> insurance more affordable," [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > but what KIND of health care? how comprehensive? how cutting edge? > what wait? and just what is the income tax rate(s) in the UK anyway? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_Kingdom don't see the tv viewing tax listed. maybe they dropped it. or maybe it comes under the stamp or excise taxes. so how does all sources of taxation compare with ours [ex: they have a vat (each process of manufacturing is taxed and it adds to the total cost of a product--what extra "tax" is paid by the consumer?)and we don't]? what does the average brit "pay" for his health care in the form of extra taxes? >> I will propose a tax reform designed to help make basic private >> insurance more affordable, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > encourage the robbery barons and oppose the only civilized options: > Universal health care. Is more taxation going to solve the problem or any problem? So far all most spending appropriations have been diverted to programs the Globalists and the Iraq War requires. Any new taxation will be used to further fund their grand design not solve Americans'problems. > Is more taxation going to solve the problem or any problem? > So far all most spending appropriations have been diverted to programs > the Globalists and the Iraq War requires. > Any new taxation will be used to further fund their grand design not > solve Americans'problems. That have to change and it is in the power of the people to do so. This is the bright side of democracy. >> Is more taxation going to solve the problem or any problem? >> So far all most spending appropriations have been diverted to programs [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That have to change and it is in the power of the people to do so. > This is the bright side of democracy. we don't live in a democracy; we live in a constitutional republic. ever wonder why all countries with the word "democratic", or any of its forms, in its name is a communist country? >>> Is more taxation going to solve the problem or any problem? >>> So far all most spending appropriations have been diverted to programs [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > wonder why all countries with the word "democratic", or any of its forms, in > its name is a communist country? http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/quotes/American_Republic.php ---------- The following is an excerpt from "The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates" authored by Ralph Ketcham : Equally discredited was "mere democracy" which still meant, as Aristotle had taught, rule by the passionate, ignorant, demagogue-dominated "voice of the people". This was sure to produce first injustice, then anarchy, and finally tyranny. Hence, virtually all shades of opinion reviled monarchy and democracy, and, publicly at least, affirmed republicanism. (This republicanism of the 1780's was not in principle different from what in Britain and America by mid-nineteenth century was generally called representative democracy. The founders would not have been opposed to modern connotations of the word "democracy", nor would they have used the word "republic" to mark out a distinction from those connotations. In scorning "democracy", eighteenth-century theorists had in mind Aristotle's picture of a heedless, emotional, manipulated populace that would still be denigrated by most modern democratic theorists). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Game, set, match. Signature"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson http://GreaterVoice.org >>> “I will propose a tax reform designed to help make basic private >>> insurance more affordable,” [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Any new taxation will be used to further fund their grand design not solve > Americans'problems. Expand the membership of the House by doubling the current membership twice in 6 years and the problem will have been solved. There would be no war if the people actually had voice in their government. Signature"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson http://GreaterVoice.org > > “I will propose a tax reform designed to help make basic private > > insurance more affordable,” [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > category, if a British guy is sick ..... he gets all the care he need > regardless of his financial status. In a socialist medical system, you can receive all the care that the system is willing and able to provide. On a timeline that it is willing and able to provide. Like all other resources in this world (except human stupidity), money is in a limited supply. Including the money available for socialist medical care. That is quite different to getting everything you need, when you need it. SignatureWant Freebies? http://www.TheFreeStuffList.com/ Check The Free Stuff List > Like all other resources in this world (except human stupidity), > money is in a limited supply. Including the money available for > socialist medical care. > > That is quite different to getting everything you need, when you > need it. The market it is just a form of rationalization of a particular resource. The strange fact is that the proponents of the "market solutions" are exactly the same persons that do not understand that. They always scream like idiots about evil of "rationalization" when indeed the market it is exactly a form of it. If you are 17% short in resources you can either decide not to cover 17% of the expenses that are less critical (like dental or esthetic surgery) OR you can decode to let away without ANY care (including life threatening) 17% of the population in order to provide esthetic surgery to those who can afford it. Market itself it is just a method for rationalization of resources. Letting the health care insurance to the market it is a politic statement that you do not care about human life if they are poor. Rationalizing the care in order to cover everybody it is a politic statement that you care more about human life than about the entitlements of a few. >> Like all other resources in this world (except human stupidity), >> money is in a limited supply. Including the money available for [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the expenses that are less critical (like dental or esthetic surgery) OR > you can decode to let away without ANY care (including life threatening) life threatening care MUST be given to those who can't pay if the hospital is a public one or receives federal funding. only private hospitals can turn them away. that's why illegal el mexicano come here and go to our emergency rooms. they CANNOT be turned away, bamby. our hospitals are struggling to keep up with the costs of these illegals, bamby. > life threatening care MUST be given to those who can't pay if the hospital > is a public one or receives federal funding. A 2003 statistic said that every year in US happen over 18000 preventable deaths > life threatening care MUST be given to those who can't pay if the hospital > is a public one or receives federal funding. A 2003 statistic said that every year in US happen over 18000 preventable deaths Due to lack of affordable health care. When a guy come into emergency room coughing blood the doctors give him a tens of thousands dollar operation just to watch him dying because the infection is too advanced. The same guy, 6 months ago might been saved with $100 worth of antibiotics. But at that time nobody gave him any attention since uninsured and not having any life threatening symptoms. This is is a standard example that unfortunate happen too often. And from examples like this, it is clear why Brits can be healthier despite the fact we pay 2.5 times as they do for health care. The guy from the example, in Britain gets a $100 bottle of pills then he gets is healthy, a productive member of the society. The same guy in US is ignored beause uninsured until he have symptoms that looks lethal. In that moment he is rushed on the table in surgery emergency room where he may have less than 50% chance of survival despite the tens of thousands of dollars emergency surgery costs supported by taxpayers. For what we kill people and waste tens of thousands in emergency room instead of a $100 in pills ? Because of the ideology of greed, libertarian/neocon style, who oppose a universal health care system just because their ideology book tell them that gov. is bad and greed is good. Because by killing these people every year, the rich shareholders and CEOs of insurance companies get a couple of casino tokens. Crime pays off. >> life threatening care MUST be given to those who can't pay if the >> hospital [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > $100 worth of antibiotics. But at that time nobody gave him any attention > since uninsured and not having any life threatening symptoms. and if he lives in canada, he may very well die. takes 8 mons to get a brain tumor treated. see the post about the heartlessness of socialized medicine. > This is is a standard example that unfortunate happen too often. And from > examples like this, it is clear why Brits can be healthier despite the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > libertarian/neocon style, who oppose a universal health care system just > because their ideology book tell them that gov. is bad and greed is good. the problem is much deeper than that. insurance is the reason health care is so expensive. a single payer system won't help. the govt via medicare and medicaid pays an enormous medical bill already. changing it to a federal single pay system won't help. everything the feds touch turns to sh.t. doctors are bound up in the system. some are finally getting out of it and leaving the patients to deal with the insurance stuff. it makes their expenses go down and they get to keep all of their fees instead of what the insurance co says it will pay. the cost of health care won't come down until the american people are forced to pay for it themselves via something like a hsa. if they get to keep what they don't spend and it's tax free, people will think twice about running to the doctor. they'll make healthier choices. one of the problems is the cheap food in this country. what passes for food here has got to change. ultimately, the majority of the sick in this country are sick by choice: overweight, poor nutrition, smoking/drugs/alcohol, no exercise. letting the taxpayer pick up the tab for a smoker's heart bypass or the majority of a type 2 diabetics treatment is bullshit. let them buck up or die. > Because by killing these people every year, the rich shareholders and CEOs > of insurance companies get a couple of casino tokens. Crime pays off. > "Nospam" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message >> When a guy come into emergency room coughing blood the doctors give him a >> tens of thousands dollar operation just to watch him dying because the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > tumor treated. see the post about the heartlessness of socialized > medicine. Canada's medicare system is NOT socialized in any way shape or form. If Canada, through it's single payer system spent as much on health care as the USA, it would have very low wait lists yet still manage to cover its entire population. And there are enormous problems of access in the American system, too. Scandalous considering all the money that is spent. In reality waits in the Canadian system are not much longer (depends on the procedure, in some cases and provinces, lower) than in the American system. > the problem is much deeper than that. insurance is the reason health care > is so expensive. a single payer system won't help. the govt via medicare > and medicaid pays an enormous medical bill already. changing it to a > federal single pay system won't help. everything the feds touch turns to > sh.t. That's not true. The VHA system is completely socialized and provides better care than the Mayo Clinic or other high profile providers. At a fraction of the cost. See: www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0501.longman.html A "single payer", as I mention later, can drive harder bargains with physicians and pharmaceutical companies which keep costs down (why do you think those groups oppose it?). Health expenditures in Canada and USA were almost identical until 1971 when Canada instituted medicare. At that point in time American health care costs continued increasing while Canada leveled out. That wasn't coincidence: http://www.chspr.ubc.ca/files/publications/1997/Strained_Mercy/fig1-1.htm Now the USA is 16% of GNP and Canada is just over 10 percent. And for that incremental expense Americans are not better off. But marketers and a cadre of sales people for insurance plans certainly are better off. > doctors are bound up in the system. some are finally getting out of it and > leaving the patients to deal with the insurance stuff. it makes their > expenses > go down and they get to keep all of their fees instead of what the insurance > co says it will pay. And they'll have fewer patients, too. > the cost of health care won't come down until the american people are > forced to pay for it themselves via something like a hsa. if they get > to keep what they don't spend and it's tax free, people will think twice > about running to the doctor. they'll make healthier choices. Anyone who's done the math and thought about HSA's carefully has come to the conclusion that they will NOT to reduce costs. The only way to reduce costs is to have a single monopsony buyer negotiating deals to keep prices low. Also, most consumers are not well informed enough to shop intelligently for health care. And last, and most importantly, the most expensive healthcare is usually the kind that disables the patient making it impossible to comparison shop for the best deal. Try shopping when you're bleeding or unconscious? HSAs really won't help -- it is voodoo economics. There are lots of articles on this issue. If you'd like a citation let me know. > one of the problems is the cheap food in this country. what passes for > food here has got to change. Very true. I'm always amazed how overweight Americans are whenever I visit -- and the size of the portions! What the hell? > ultimately, the majority of the sick in this country are sick by choice: > overweight, > poor nutrition, smoking/drugs/alcohol, no exercise. letting the taxpayer > pick up the tab for a smoker's heart bypass or the majority of a type 2 > diabetics > treatment is bullshit. let them buck up or die. Okay, Marie Antoinette -- got any cake? :-) The last thing we need is people playing C/B analysis with peoples' lives. Smokers and diabetics pay taxes, too. And if they're not treated early it gets more expensive subsequently when Emergency care is required. Let them die? If you want to spark a revolution that will bring down American as we know it, enact a policy like you've suggested. I like American how it is and I don't want to see it turn into a country like Brazil. American needs a strong middle class. > the problem is much deeper than that. insurance is the reason health > care is so expensive. a single payer system won't help. It is actually working perfectly everywhere else in the civilized world. Unless you can prove that Americans are genetically inferior to everybody else in the world, and what everybody else can do we will fail, you may want to reconsider that faith based assertion. > the govt via medicare and medicaid pays an enormous medical bill already. Yes of course. Because they cover the old and the sick from which ALL the private insurers run away because they are not a good proffit target. When a people is young and healthy, the private insurer rip off him 10k every year in premiums and he may not need to se a doctor for years in a row. But the premiums are collected neverless and fat dividends are payed to shareholders and CEO. When the guy gets old and sick, the private insurers that collected (inflation adjusted) over 300k during his lifetime step down and it is the Medicare/Medicaid job to pay for it at the expense of taxpayer. Summary: Proffits =--> Private Insurers, Taxpayers =--> Health Expenses With an single payer system the money payed by young and healthy will cover the expenses for the elderly and sick and when they become old their expenses will be payed by young and healthy. With today system, we are practically loot taxpayers to pay proffits to private insurers. It is robbery. Private insurers ARE robbery barons of today. So, contrary to your faith based assertions not backed by ANY logic only on empty slogans, the single payer system it is the ONLY solution for the crisis. And I backed this by reasons, and the European experience back it once again and so on. US it is the last bastion where robbery barons get a safe heaven due to people like you that prefer a faith based ideology instead of logic and facts. > changing it to a federal single pay system won't help. everything the > feds touch turns to sh.t. PR from your faith based cult of greed, possibly financed by some corporations very interested to preserve the current criminal system > doctors are bound up in the system. some are finally getting out of it > and leaving the patients to deal with the insurance stuff. As a prof that the private insurance system it is a mess intended to hurt people and doctors for a proffit. > the cost of health care won't come down until the american people are > forced to pay for it themselves via something like a hsa. You still have to prove that we are genetically inferior to everybody else from the rest of the world if you claim that what is working just fine everywhere else is never going to work here. > if they get > to keep what they don't spend and it's tax free, people will think twice > about running to the doctor. they'll make healthier choices. The "healthier choice" not to go to a doctor due to cost it is made today by 47M Americans forced (economically coerced) to risk their health and life in order to be able to put food on the kids table. Every year over 18000 of them die due to these "healthier choices" and taxpayers foot the bill for a $50000 emergency surgery a piece to cover what 6 months ago would be curable with a $100 antibiotics bottle. Sorry Caligula, I don't like your solution. > ultimately, the majority of the sick in this country are sick by choice: > overweight, poor nutrition, smoking/drugs/alcohol, no exercise. More vacation time like in Europe will definitely help with exercise. Sweden have 6 to 8 weeks of vacation per year, and they exercise a lot being much healthier than us. A much better job security will cut in more than half the stress inducted illnesses as we see in French. While Brits drink and smoke more than us, are healthier than us while we pay 2.5 times as much ad they do for health care. And for that tiny fraction of money they cover everybody while we let 17% to make Caligula style "healthier choices". But of course. You will oppose to any regulation to improve job security, expand vacation time or increase food stamp for poor that can not afford a decent healthy nutrition. The big advantage with the "free market" crap is that always the guy responsible for a problem will find an very easy scrap goat by blaming the victim. The victim is always to blame because "didn't make a good choice" while the looter/criminal/cheater is always a "successfull businessman" ready to give lesson to others. Quite a disgusting ideology, quite disgusting. >> the problem is much deeper than that. insurance is the reason health >> care is so expensive. a single payer system won't help. > > It is actually working perfectly everywhere else in the civilized world. perhaps it just hides the rising costs in rising taxes. if the people of this country had to pay their taxes in one bite instead of payday by payday, there would be such a stink made. that's why it was switched to payroll deduction. and the date is about as far away from election day as you can get. >> the govt via medicare and medicaid pays an enormous medical bill >> already. > > Yes of course. Because they cover the old and the sick from which ALL the > private insurers run away because they are not a good proffit target. medicare=old medicaid=poor what i'd like to see is medicaid eligibility separated from the welfare system. >> changing it to a federal single pay system won't help. everything the >> feds touch turns to sh.t. > > PR from your faith based cult of greed, possibly financed by some > corporations very interested to preserve the current criminal system no, i can see it for myself. have any idea as to how much money the gao says goes missing each year? next ripoff coming is sending people to mars. we didn't land on the moon (proven by nasa pix in a public book) and we're not landing on mars. all that money will just disappear. >> doctors are bound up in the system. some are finally getting out of it >> and leaving the patients to deal with the insurance stuff. > > As a prof that the private insurance system it is a mess intended to hurt > people and doctors for a proffit. never said it wasn't a mess, just that i don't want govt fingers in any more pies. >> the cost of health care won't come down until the american people are >> forced to pay for it themselves via something like a hsa. > > You still have to prove that we are genetically inferior to everybody else > from the rest of the world if you claim that what is working just fine > everywhere else is never going to work here. genetics aren't needed. do you know that the generation being born is expected to be the first to die at an earlier age then its parents? the problem isn't medical care, it's the we don't take responsibility for our health. we don't in this country because we don't pay the monetary price. insurance does it for us (at least 83% of us). >> ultimately, the majority of the sick in this country are sick by choice: >> overweight, poor nutrition, smoking/drugs/alcohol, no exercise. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > being > much healthier than us. gee, i guess a walk after dinner each night or before work won't work, eh? and you don't need a gym membership. lots of much cheaper options. > A much better job security will cut in more than half the stress inducted > illnesses as we see in French. huh? france has a high rate of unemployment for their youths. they were just rioting about it recently. burned down lots of stuff. companies obviouly don't want to move their business there (probably due to the high cost of their socialized govt), so what's france gonna do with its testosterone-laden, unemployed youths? > While Brits drink and smoke more than us, are healthier than us while > we pay 2.5 times as much ad they do for health care. And for that tiny [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > expand vacation time or increase food stamp for poor that can not afford a > decent healthy nutrition. actually, the poor generally get plenty of food stamps. my brother gets so much that he buys food for others with what he has left. i want to see food stamps tied down, like wic, to specific foods. no junk food on taxpayer dimes. and i don't want to hear any crap about how the poor are entitled to buy a birthday cake from the store bakery. buy the base ingredients and make it from scratch. and no crap about what if they're so poor they don't have an oven to bake a cake in, only a hotplate. then make a pot of bd spaghetti. if you're THAT poor, you don't need to waste ANY funds on making a bd cake. better a nutritious bd dinner. > The big advantage with the "free market" crap is that always the guy > responsible for a problem will find an very easy scrap goat by blaming the > victim. The victim is always to blame because "didn't make a good choice" > while the looter/criminal/cheater is always a "successfull businessman" > ready to give lesson to others. so, most teenage girls in this country get pregnant via rape? they didn't make the choice to have sex? and the teenage boys were forced to have sex with the girls? the root cause of poverty in this country is that you have teens fathering/spitting out babies before they graduate hs, let alone college, which due to the crappy public school system, is now almost required just so an employer knows that you can +,-,*,/ and read. dh and i both come from poverty (single (divorced) parents/alcoholic parents, another major causes of poverty), but we worked to make sure that our children didn't have it. neither of us had/fathered a child until we were financially ready for one. mainly, it all about responsibility. this country could cut medical costs and get a lot healthier if it wanted to. but it's spoiled rotten. gimme, gimme, gimme. gotta have it NOW. i'll eat what i want, when i want, as much as i want. i'll do as i damn well please. and because the consequenses are not my fault, someone else should pay for it. >>> life threatening care MUST be given to those who can't pay if the >>> hospital [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >and if he lives in canada, he may very well die. takes 8 mons to get a >brain tumor treated. When there is medically necessary urgency, Canada has a high rate of approving proceedures a lot faster than that! > see the post about the heartlessness of socialized medicine. I saw the earlier mentioned post. Although I agree that Canada is far from "ideal", I think Canada still beats USA. Many advanced lifesaving techniques are not available to the 15% of USA's population that is uninsured, such as transplants. USA has government spending on healthcare about the same percentage as Canada has, and not even counting employer contributions to government employee health insurance premiums outside healthcare-related departments/agencies - example, public school teachers, police officers, political office holders and their staffs, court employees including public defenders and their staff, and prison employees. So what does USA get for spending as high a percentage of GDP on healthcare as Canada does? Most government workers having health insurance employer contributions being an additional tax burden - plus the employees have to contribute. Private sector employers and employees having a huge USA-specific cost, one of the factors that reduces competitiveness of USA labor. 15% of US citizens uncovered. - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com) snip > So what does USA get for spending as high a percentage of GDP on > healthcare as Canada does? do you really think that the percentage will stay the same with a single payer system? i don't. it'll go up. snip > Like all other resources in this world (except human stupidity), since when is human stupidity a resource ;) >>> “I will propose a tax reform designed to help make basic private >>> insurance more affordable,” [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > money is in a limited supply. Including the money available for > socialist medical care. Can you define "socialist medicare" for us? France and Canada for instance, have single payer financing which does not = socialist medical care. The systems most countries have is not "socialist" per se but a form of social insurance like limited corporate liability or Federal Bank Deposit Insurance. > Can you define "socialist medicare" for us? France and Canada for > instance, have single payer financing which does not = socialist > medical care. The systems most countries have is not "socialist" per se > but a form of social insurance like limited corporate liability or > Federal Bank Deposit Insurance. For a libertarian or a neocon, everything that is on left side of extreme right it is by definition socialist. I explained to them the difference tens of times, but once they got a reply they can not ignore without looking ridicule, they just change their screen name then start again from the beginning with the same PR slogans. In their fundamentalist, belief based ideology, if you are not an radical right fanatic you MUST be a socialist. No third option. You are either for Jihad against working people and accept to worship the greedy, either you are a socialist. >> Can you define "socialist medicare" for us? France and Canada for >> instance, have single payer financing which does not = socialist [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >You are either for Jihad against working people and accept to worship the >greedy, either you are a socialist. Libertarians used to be very different from conservatives. Sadly, in more modern times all too many of those that have most loudly called themselves libertarians are awfully similar to neocons. Nowadays all too many of those that most loudly call themselves libertarians want government out of the boardroom but support politicians that want to control things that go on in the bedroom or who like laws against me marrying the man I love. - Donald L. Klipstein (Jr) (don@misty.com) > Libertarians used to be very different from conservatives. Sadly, in > more modern times all too many of those that have most loudly called > themselves libertarians are awfully similar to neocons. It is sad. I think of them as "fundamentalist", in the same vein as some "my way or the highway" evangelical Christians or Muslims who exclude or drive sensible people away from faith in the God they profess to love. snip > Can you define "socialist medicare" for us? France and Canada for > instance, have single payer financing which does not = socialist medical > care. The systems most countries have is not "socialist" per se but a > form of social insurance like limited corporate liability or Federal Bank > Deposit Insurance. imo, when a govt controls it, it's socialist or fascist. ultimately they both have the same goal: control. they just go about it in a different manner. but in the end, they control it. and yes, we're the ussa. and bankrupt. neither of which anyone will admit to. wanna guess who owns the bulk of our t-bills and what will happen when they want their money back? > snip >> Can you define "socialist medicare" for us? France and Canada for [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > neither of which anyone will admit to. wanna guess who owns the bulk > of our t-bills and what will happen when they want their money back? I'm guessing China and Japan and Europe. The USA is in big trouble if they ever cash in at once, but I don't think they will. The USA would just be paying them off with worthless dollars. Or the USA could just default like Mexico. Japan or China or Europe are not going to play hardball with America over treasuries. They have too much to lose. All ,IMO. YMMV. >> snip >>> Can you define "socialist medicare" for us? France and Canada for [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > hardball with America over treasuries. They have too much to lose. All > ,IMO. YMMV. china. and they're NOT our friends. if they cash in, we've got big problems. why do think china has too much to lose? > >> snip > >>> Can you define "socialist medicare" for us? France and Canada for [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > problems. > why do think china has too much to lose? What they have to lose is NOT merely the US-dollar-value of the bonds. Rather, an attempt to cash out would possibly result in retaliation. Like huge tariffs, blocking access to one of their main sources of income - Wal Mart. SignatureWant Freebies? http://www.TheFreeStuffList.com/ Check The Free Stuff List >> china. and they're NOT our friends. if they cash in, we've got big >> problems. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > retaliation. Like huge tariffs, blocking access to one of their > main sources of income - Wal Mart. You guys sometimes are so naive that you seems at kindergarden age. A fiat currency is always backed by the economic power. If a country run huge trade deficit proving that it economy is dysfunctional, usually the fiat currency devaluate to balance the trade. However, many of the US debtors bought bonds in the hope that US economy it is going to recover. It is useless for China to hold US money and bonds unless they hope the US economy will recover and the gov. will be able to pay the from the revenues they collect from taxes. If the US economy is however proven to be so dysfunctional that this hope is gone, then they have no reason to hold on these bonds and dollars. For US to recover and be able to pay back the debt, that means the ability to PRODUCE demostically stuff to be exported offshore. Strangely enough for economically naive right wing supporters, "exporting jobs" do not bring any revenue to pay the debt. Therefore, by any single US corporations leaving US shore to move his production in China, US lose it ability to payoff that debt that (still) prevent dollar from collapsing and (still) keep US economy from the next Great Depression. About China, it is delusional to think that China cares a milimeter about stupid WalMart if the US consumers do not have anymore financial power to buy. WalMart has been a tool that just provided China with what they wanted most: Incentive for US corporations to dismantle domestic production facilities and reassemble them in China. China now produce stuff they export to America to encourage more US corporations to open production facilities in China by putting low cost competitive pressure on them. If tomorrow China and US relations break down, the corporations that moved production facilities will want to move out. Well, not so luck on you idiots. China is not going to be as naive as the stupid rightards. They will be smart enough to nationalize the US corporations that want to leave. Then have them produce for the people of China. And BTW, money have no f.cking value. The wealth it is measured in the quantity of goods and services you can consume. The broken relations with China, will let US consumers with less than half of the goods we use to consume today, while will more than double the quantity of goods Chinese consume. That is. They will become a wealthy nation while US will become a poor nation. Why China is keeping his currency low ? Because they want to attract idiotic and greedy US corporations that will dismantle US production facilities and move them there !!! That is. What China is buying as we speak with US dollars are: US FACTORIES !!! Once these factories are moved in China, they will never leave that shore even if the commercial relations from US and China cease and the current owners of these factories lose the ownership entirely. Yet, some naive posters on the usenet believe that China give a damn about a junkie company like WalMart :-) >>> china. and they're NOT our friends. if they cash in, we've got big >>> problems. [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > a > junkie company like WalMart :-) well, we finally agree wholeheartedly about something. bottom line: this country is in a world of sh.t. from the left and the right. it doesn't matter which side because they're both serve the same master and are leading us down the same path, just with different plans. it's called divide and conquer. > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/washington/21health.html > Bush Urges Tax to Help Cover the Uninsured [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > insurance and tax increases for workers whose health plans cost more > than the national average. Considering how bad Bush's record on anything and everything is and the presence of a Democratic majority in the House and Senate, I suspect Bush's proposal will be shot down pretty quickly. Bush has burned far too many bridges to have such a huge proposal be seriously considered. Even when his party had control over both the House an Senate, he still didn't get far with his social security privation plan, so I seriously doubt this new proposal will ever see the light of day. > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/washington/21health.html > Bush Urges Tax to Help Cover the Uninsured [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > increase their tax liability. This proposal is inconsistent with what > the majority is seeking in the House and the Senate." The Democrats would necessarily reject any such changes. Since the only way the moron party makes any money is through insurance inflation. > Supporters say the plan would expand coverage to some of the 47 > million uninsured. But critics say it would, in effect, tax people [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > pressure to cut benefits and increase co-payments and deductibles in > order to keep the value of health plans beneath the tax cap." I just analyzed more closely the new proposal. It is a scam !!!! Here is copy/paste from another thread: > Should be interesting. It look good at first. Into a post in this morning I call it "A patch ". In mantime however, I took the time to analyze how it is going to work. It is a disaster: It is a quite a nasty plan that will harm sick and help .... insurance companies. Let see the truth behind this quite well crafted deceiving: 1. Tax the benefits (bot the employee and employer portion) and provide a 15k deductible to the employee only. 2. The portion of the employer gets taxed so if the employer wants to still provide the same coverage to employees he have to pay more. 3. As a result, the employers are very likely to just give to employees his portion as a salary increase and ask them to buy insurance individually and deduct themselves. Ok until here, from now on the real issues start. 4. The employee buy the individual coverage. However, when the employer negotiate he negotiate for tens, hundreds or thousands of people. He gets 5...10..20% or more discount. This discounts are going to be lost by individual applications. Avoiding this discounts, the insurance company increase profits while the insured pays ...... MORE than with a group plan. Instead to reduce the expenses for buying insurance, this plan increase them. 5. Conform HIPAA regulation, it is illegal for an insurer to deny coverage due to precondition to a member into a group plan. However, there is NO such provision for individual applicants which CAN and ARE denied coverage due to precondition. This would be the biggest effect of the Bush proposal: ALL INSURED SICK PEOPLE WILL LOSE THEIR COVERAGE FOR EXISTENT PRECONDITION and for the perverse proposal to be complete, since they have NO COVERAGE they LOSE THE TAX DEDUCTION TOO. The proposal state that they will get the tax deduction IF THEY BUY health insurance. If their applications are rejected due to precondition, they technically didn't buy health insurance. What the plan will achieve if approved as presented ? a) More revenue to insurance companies due to elimination of discounts. b) More expensive insurance premiums due to lack of discounts. c) If you are sick "Die you son of the bitch !!!" Only good proffits targets must be insured and benefiting from tax cut. A sick people should die in pain while paying every penny for every pill he buy for himself. because of precondition. I hope the democrats will oppose and block this trash. If this plan is to be at any good, the minimum extra provision will be to make a crime for insurers to deny coverage or to charge more due to precondition. This will still let on the loose the increase due to elimination of discounts. But at least will maintain coverage for sick. If this proposal is not complemented by outlawing of precondition refusal/overcharge then this plan it is criminal in itself. >I just analyzed more closely the new proposal. It is a scam !!!! well of course it's a scam. if it comes from a govt, it can be nothing else. > Here is copy/paste from another thread: > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > If this proposal is not complemented by outlawing of precondition > refusal/overcharge then this plan it is criminal in itself. >> I just analyzed more closely the new proposal. It is a scam !!!! > > well of course it's a scam. if it comes from a govt, it can be nothing > else. I don't hear any bitching or whining from insurance or pharmaceutical companies about it -- that's how I know it's a scam. The initial threshhold is modest- $7500 for individuals and $15000 for families. The generic $500 deudctable, 20% copay to $5000 for individual and double famility cost employers about half that amount. Fully paid medical held by some union contracts may exceed that amount. > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/washington/21health.html > Bush Urges Tax to Help Cover the Uninsured [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > pressure to cut benefits and increase co-payments and deductibles in > order to keep the value of health plans beneath the tax cap." This is the sort of stuff that really make my angry. Here we have Pinocchio finally doing something that could benefit the common people and a bunch of Democrats that do not want to let His Assholiness get credit for ANYTHING. I hate Bush with a white hot searing hatred greater than any other person on this planet, but my reaction is to hang this liar with his own rope. "The devil is in the detail" and it is the Democratic Congress that will draft the legislation and pass it through both Houses of Congress. Bush, due to the fact that it was his idea will be forced to sign it into law. SO! 1. The employers will withhold tax on premiums paid by the employers. 2. The working folks will get a tax CREDIT for amounts paid for health insurance AND co-pays, and aspirins and every thing else WITH NO EXCLUSIONS LIKE THAT 6% CRAP WE CURRENTLY HAVE. That results in a net gain for everyone and it is NOT revenue neutral. It will be costing the government big time. AND NOW FOR THE REAL BENEFITS!!!! The worker is no longer held hostage to the employer's health insurance plan because the employee can insist on just getting the money as opposed to having the employer pay the premiums -- ITS ALL TAXABLE ANYWAY. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I can buy my insurance through the many, many, groups that will be created IMMEDIATELY such as the UAW will have a group that is larger than the individual car companies, and "Open Road" will offer a group for us truck drivers much larger than any single trucking company can offer. The bigger the group the lower the costs, and I can change jobs any time and not lose my accrued deductible. Nor do I need to wait to "qualify" in the new company, nor do I get stuck for preexisting crap due to changing employers. Ending the employer subsidy for health insurance is a very positive thing for all working people. No more company hook in my a.s due to health insurance: WORKER MOBILITY = HIGHER WAGES. Signature"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education." - Thomas Jefferson http://GreaterVoice.org
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.