Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by classicman

I agree that is why auto insurance is mandated - not so much the socialism part though.

You are giving $1000+ a year to your car insurance company to pay for someone else's car wreck. You will get no refund when you stop driving, even if you've never had a wreck in your life. How is that not socialism?

[Undertoad]

Because when State Farm gives us a bad deal we can switch to Progressive.

[Clodfobble]

And that's one of the biggest problems with the health care industry, that I've bitched about specifically before. The advent of employer-provided healthcare killed any real competition between the insurance companies--you just have to go with whoever your employer chooses. If anything, your employer should contribute to your health savings fund on your behalf, but you should have control of which insurance company you choose. That one tiny change right there would fix HUGE numbers of problems.

[Happy Monkey]

I agree, to a great extent, but unfortunately corporations are often the only ones big enough to negotiate good deals with the insurance companies, and (I think) it's harder for them to kick people out of the corporate plan than it is for them to boot sick individuals.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I agree, to a great extent, but unfortunately corporations are often the only ones big enough to negotiate good deals with the insurance companies,

Very true. And that fits the capitalistic model. Volume pricing will always get a better deal than you can get on your own.

and (I think) it's harder for them to kick people out of the corporate plan than it is for them to boot sick individuals.

True, but they can charge you higher premiums based on your individual case to offset the standard and set fee the employer pays for your insurance. The employer certainly is not going to pay more. And each year the insurance company can and does increase premiums to the employee with little change or in many cases less coverage.

[classicman]

Why can't the Gov't repeal the law that doesn't allow them to do so. That in itself would ... oh nevermind.

[TheMercenary]

For a side by side comparison of all the plans floating around congress, select all in each of the two boxes. It will come up as a PDF file.

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm

[Bitman]

One more thing -- The USA is already running an annual deficit. Every dollar a health plan would require must come from at least one extra dollar in taxes.

[TheMercenary]

Meaning the share holders, us the US public, you know the portion that pays income tax, will be paying for it.

And the latest news is that the major hospital associations will be chipping in a huge portion in savings for the federal plan as well. Guess who is going to pay for thier missing bit? All the rest of those who pay for their health care now, not the portion who get it for free, as they do now. Guess what, costs are not going to go up for the rest of those who pay. You think the CEO's and hospitals are just going to cut their profits? Don't count on that. They will be protected under any new plan.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

[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.